ffxiclopediafandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Warrior's Armor Set
Warrior's Stone part of the Warrior's Armor Set? Should the Warrior's Stone actually be included in this set, considering it's not NPC-storable with the rest of the equipment? Additionally, unlike the other five pieces of this set, the stone has no analog in the Fighter's Armor Set. Perhaps the Warrior's Stone should merely be a footnote. —The SCSIBug 05:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC) :Go ahead and remove the relic accessory from any AF2 page you find, you are most correct. -- 05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC) While this may technically be correct, isn't it more of an inconvenience than anything? --Futan 00:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :It seems to me that while these articles may be inconvenient without the accessories, they're inaccurate and confusing with them. Most of those relic accessories—if they're generally considered effective by the FFXI community—will show up in equipment guides all over the wiki, not to mention in the FFXIclopedia.org hyperlinks from Dyna-shell sites. —The SCSIBug 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Our current conventions warrant this change, the waist and back items are not part of the set due to the fact that they are not storable. SCSIBug's changes (or re-removals in some cases) are welcome. -- 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC) How about this then, we put a "See Also" with the link to the back/waist? --Futan 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :So as long as it's not included in the overall set statistics or implies that it's a part of the set I don't see a problem. Probably maybe a mention in the actual description of the set? You can brainstorm ideas here if you like. Shouldn't be an issue as long as the reference is the same wording/location/etc on all the armor sets, to keep the pages uniform. -- 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Technically they are Relic accessories, no? I understand the removal of the waist/back items, but I think they should somehow be linked to since they are 'unofficially' part of the set considering they share the common relic nomenclature and are job specific. I feel the "footnote" would be well warranted and agree that the statistics shouldn't be added to the set. I also feel that acknowledging that they are unstorable pieces and are "unofficial set pieces" would be well justified and informative. --Bloodsuckingflea 6 August 2008 :I agree linking the accessories on their respective pages is more helpful than confusing. In fact, I never once thought of it as confusing or even remotely close to it. I see nothing wrong with adding a link and stating its not part of the "storable" set. Just because one person is confused by an item doesn't mean we should rule out every one else. The relic accessories fall under three similiar rules as normal relics: They have the same title/prefix name (i.e. Cleric's), they drop in dynamis and are specific to a single job. Imagine what would have happened through-out history had we went off the opinions of a few people ^^ --Bekisa 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ::Linking to it is fine. Basically what we don't want it as part of the table, or the overall stats. -- 01:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I'm going to add the "See Also" I mentioned at the bottom until we decide what to do. --Futan 15:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)